CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday: The return of big government.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
We have to prove democracy still works, that our government still works, and we can deliver for our people.
CHUCK TODD:
President Biden proposing a huge increase in government spending.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
The American Jobs Plan will be the biggest increase in non-defense research and development on record.
CHUCK TODD:
Six trillion dollars on social spending, infrastructure, climate change, health care and more.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
These are investments we made together as one country, and investments only the government was in a position to make.
CHUCK TODD:
Republicans push back, calling Mr. Biden divisive and fiscally irresponsible.
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY:
He could have walked up and said, “I want all of you to, to send every bit of your money and freedom to Washington.”
CHUCK TODD:
How much will Congress approve? And how would we pay for it? My guests this morning: Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. Plus, amid anger over policing --
BEN CRUMP:
It was a kill shot to the back of the head.
CHUCK TODD:
-- could this comment from Senator Tim Scott --
SEN. TIM SCOTT:
America is not a racist country.
CHUCK TODD:
-- complicate efforts at police reform? Also, states of play. The winners, the losers and the big unanswered questions after the new census numbers come in. Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Kasie Hunt; Yamiche Alcindor, White House correspondent for PBS NewsHour; former Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri; and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.
CHUCK TODD:
And a good Sunday morning. In his 1981 inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan captured the nation's growing frustration with big government.
[START TAPE]
PRES. RONALD REAGAN:
Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Fifteen years later in 1996, a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, admitted the defeat of activist government:
[START TAPE]
PRES. BILL CLINTON:
The era of big government is over.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Then this past Wednesday, in his speech to Congress, President Joe Biden tried to put a stake in both of those ideas, declaring that the era of big government being over -- is now over. In the process, Mr. Biden also made clear that the idea that he intends to be a transitional president, well, that's also over, too. He intends to be a transformational one. The president's goals are ambitious, far-reaching and yes, expensive. Will voters care about the scope of Mr. Biden's plans? Well, here’s one clue: 55 percent of adults in our new NBC News poll say the government should do more to solve our problems, versus 41 percent who say the government is doing too much. How about, will voters care about the price tag? Possibly, but President Trump and the Republicans may have made it a bit easier for Mr. Biden by spending big themselves, cutting taxes for the wealthy and running up the deficit on their watch. So Mr. Biden is making a six-trillion dollar bet that promoting popular programs will be popular and that he'll be rewarded for getting things done, long before the actual bill comes due.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
I don't have any inordinate faith in government, but there are certain things only the government can do.
CHUCK TODD:
President Biden making the case for the largest expansion of government programs in decades.
PRES. JOE BIDEN
These are investments we made together as one country, and investments that only the government is in the position to make.
CHUCK TODD:
It's a reimagining of the role of government in American life, extending an argument made by Barack Obama, but never fully implemented given his political constraints.
PRES. BARACK OBAMA:
We have never been a people who place all of our faith in government to solve our problems, we shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either.
CHUCK TODD:
It gained momentum during a Democratic primary campaign that pushed the party to the left.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas.
CHUCK TODD:
The $1.8 trillion dollar American Families Plan proposes universal pre-K, two years of tuition-free community college and expanded paid family and medical leave. It comes on top of a $2.2 trillion dollar infrastructure proposal and after a $1.9 trillion dollar Covid relief package. To pay for some of these initiatives, White House officials are proposing tax increases on corporations and the wealthiest Americans.
PRES. JOE BIDEN:
The American Family Plan does four things, and we pay for it all. One, without raising the deficit.
CHUCK TODD:
Biden is betting Americans are open to an activist government: 82% of Democrats, 60% of independents and even a quarter of Republicans say government should do more to solve the country's problems. It’s the opening of what is likely to be a summer slugfest.
REP. STEVE SCALISE:
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
REP. KEVIN McCARTHY
Think about how much money he is spending.
SEN. RICK SCOTT:
He doesn't want to talk about how it's going to get paid for.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
If I ever hear that Joe Biden’s a moderate again, I’m going to throw up.
CHUCK TODD:
Republicans, now concerned about deficits, argued Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts would pay for themselves.
SEN. KEVIN McCARTHY:
I worry about deficits, but you’re not going to get out of this problem until you grow the economy.
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL:
I’m totally convinced this is a revenue neutral bill, actually a revenue producer.
CHUCK TODD:
It wasn't, and the deficit grew substantially. Now some Senate Democrats are already hinting at deficit spending. Hawaii's Brian Schatz telling Axios, “I’m not a big pay-for guy." Connecticut's Chris Murphy, quote, "I don't know that it needs to be fully paid for." And Montana's Jon Tester: “I think we should find a way to pay for half of it up front." To get his plans through Congress, Biden needs to get centrist Democrats on board.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN:
It’s a lot. It's a lot. Trillions and trillions of dollars. We need to pay for it, we do.
CHUCK TODD:
And the president has to hold progressives who are defying the White House and pursuing a massive expansion of Medicare, after a health care overhaul was left out of Biden's plans.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL:
I just think it's the wrong approach. We need to take on those lobbyists and big pharma companies that are so willing to pour millions into defeating any kind of reform.
CHUCK TODD:
And joining me now is the Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen. Secretary Yellen, welcome to Meet the Press.
SEC. JANET YELLEN:
Thanks so much. Pleasure to be with you.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with what is on a lot of folks' minds, at least in Washington, which is simply: how do you pay for it? And so, I know that you guys have a plan, so put it in layman's terms here, Secretary Yellen, how you believe the administration -- what you guys believe is the best way to pay for these plans.
SEC. JANET YELLEN:
Well, first of all, we think the plans are extremely important and necessary to invest in our economy so that we can be competitive and have families and children succeed, invest in infrastructure, in R&D and the things that shore up middle class prosperity: education, childcare and health care. And we've proposed to pay for these two packages by raising the tax rate on corporations above its current level of 21 percent but keeping it under the level it was for decades at 35 percent and to close loopholes that incent American corporations to shift their income abroad to tax havens. So right now, corporate income tax amounts to only 7 percent of total federal tax revenue, and corporate income has increased as a share of GDP. And we're proposing changes to the corporate tax system that would close loopholes. This comes also in the context of global negotiations to try to stop a decades-long race to the bottom among countries in competing for business by lowering their corporate tax rates. And we feel that will be successful.
CHUCK TODD:
Look, there's --
SEC. JANET YELLEN:
The president has pledged that --
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, go ahead. Let me -- finish your thought there.
SEC. JANET YELLEN:
-- no family earning under $400,000 will pay a penny more in taxes. And we've been assiduous in sticking to that pledge. So, the other part of paying for this comes from raising taxes back to the level they were at, 39.6 percent before 2017 for families making over $400,000. And for the tiny group -- three-tenths of 1 percent -- of Americans making more than a million dollars, that they would be asked to pay on capital gains and dividends that same rate, rather than the far lower rate it is now. And President Biden believes, and I agree, that workers shouldn't face higher taxes on their wage income than wealthy individuals do on their rewards from -- to capital.
CHUCK TODD:
Well look I, I wanted you to lay that out there because I wanted folks to hear it. Because there's quite a few Democratic senators that are now talking about the idea of maybe we don't need to raise all of these taxes. And you just made a case, for instance on infrastructure, that, you know, these are investments and that they're worthy of deficit spending. This bill comes back to the president without these pay-fors, president’s still going to sign it?
SEC. JANET YELLEN:
Well, I’m not going to speak for what the president will do in a negotiation. But he has made clear that he believes that permanent increases in spending should be paid for and I agree. I think we're in a good fiscal position. Interest rates are historically low. They've been that way for a long time, and it's likely they'll stay that way into the future. But we do need fiscal space to be able to address emergencies, like the one that we've been in with respect to the pandemic. We don't want to use up all of that fiscal space and over the long run deficits need to be contained to keep our federal finances on a sustainable basis. So, I believe that we should pay for, pay for these historic investments. There will be a big return. I expect productivity to rise. There will be great returns from investing in research and development and enabling of families to participate with paid leave and childcare support in the workforce. So, I think it's true that a stronger economy will generate more tax revenues, but I think the safest thing is to pay for them, and we're doing it in a way that's fair. I should also mention that an important way of paying for this is increasing tax compliance. It's estimated that underpayment of taxes that are really due is costing us, the federal government, about $7 trillion over a decade. And there's an important proposal here to increase compliance, to fund the IRS, so that -- and this is a matter of fairness -- to increase and collect the tax revenue that's due under our tax code.
CHUCK TODD:
Look, there's some concerns that all of this spending is going to lead to inflation issues. And I know right now the current inflation is arguably more of a supply chain issue right now than anything else. But how do we avoid what happened in the '70s with inflation where basically a bunch of spending for 20 and 30 years got to a point where we suddenly were in an inflation spiral? Why won’t -- how is it that the same thing won't happen again over the next 20 years?
SEC. JANET YELLEN:
So, the spending that's been proposed in the jobs plan, in the families plan, it comes into effect once the economy is back on track and the spending from the rescue plan that's coming into force and helping us get on track, after that stimulus is spent. It's spread out quite evenly over eight to 10 years. So, the boost to demand is moderate. And the Federal Reserve has the tools to redress inflation should it arise. We will monitor that very carefully. We are proposing that the spending be paid for. And I don't believe that inflation will be an issue, but if it becomes an issue, we have tools to address it. These are historic investments that we need to make our economy productive and fair.
CHUCK TODD:
Secretary Yellen, it's always a lot to get to and explain when it comes to monetary policy, how we pay for things and all of this. So, I really appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective. Thank you.
SEC. JANET YELLEN:
Thank you, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
And joining me now is Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. Senator Portman, welcome back to Meet The Press. Earlier this week --
SEN. ROB PORTMAN:
Thank you, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, good to see you. Earlier this week, you seemed to lament and be a little bit, I would say, skeptical of the outreach that you're now receiving from the White House. You said you were hopeful and then during Covid relief you felt as if it wasn't sincere. Senator Capito says that she feels as if her exchanges so far with the White House are much different this time than they were over Covid relief. Would you concur with that?
SEN. ROB PORTMAN:
Yes, I think it's going to be a better opportunity. And frankly, if the White House is going to work with us, this is a deal we can do. Infrastructure has always been bipartisan. It's a different sort of a proposition than some of the spending that Janet Yellen just talked about. Secretary Yellen talked about the $6 trillion in new spending. Only about 20 percent of the jobs bill that the president has proposed goes to real infrastructure and that part of it can be paid for. And it can be paid for with user fees. It can paid for with some of the Covid money that's already gone out because states would love to use it for infrastructure. And of course, it can be paid for in different ways, as we have in the past, like PPPs -- public-private partnerships -- but also an infrastructure bank because these are long-term capital expenditures. So, it's very possible, Chuck, that we can get a deal here if they're willing to do it. You know, we'll see. With Covid, you're right, a bunch of us went to the White House, made a proposal, and the president indicated he wanted to negotiate, but unfortunately the next morning they changed their mind. And Chuck Schumer announced that they were all going to do this by reconciliation, which knocks Republicans out of the game all together. So, let's hope we don't have a repeat of that because I think we can come up with a good bill that's bipartisan and one that actually will survive over time because it'll be more sustainable with Republican and Democrat support.
CHUCK TODD:
Look, you just made a -- you made a very similar case about how, hey, this is capital expenditures. Most companies, when they make capital expenditures, they borrow money. So, is there a case to be made that maybe on the physical infrastructure that deficit spending is actually the way to go, especially since the pay-for here is going to be arguably the largest sticking point between the two sides?
SEN. ROB PORTMAN:
I think the way to go is to depend on user fees, as we always have, and about $200 billion will come in over the next five years through the Highway Trust Fund alone, but also through the government being able to borrow at lower rates. And Secretary Yellen didn't talk about this, but the infrastructure bank and the P3 I talked about earlier, that's essentially using the government's ability to borrow at lower rates and over time to be able to pay for these projects. So, it's not deficit spending, but it is, because it's a capital expenditure, paid for in a different way. And that's one reason we can get to this. On the Covid side, these states are getting lots of money. They don't know what to do with it in many cases. Some are talking about sending it back. Some have already done that. Others would like to use it for infrastructure. That's a great opportunity. Normally the ratio is 20 percent local, 80 percent federal. There are plenty of states, including my own, that would love to use it for roads and bridges and other infrastructure and be willing to pay a higher percentage, maybe 50-50, some even 100 percent. That delta, the difference between the 20 percent and 50 percent or 100 percent, certainly would be used to pay for infrastructure. So, there's lots of opportunities here, Chuck, for us to get to yes. I would like to comment on what Secretary Yellen said about the tax increases, too, if that's okay.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, I will. I want to ask you, though, about the issue of user fees because you have proposed them. And you're not the only Republican that has. But do you realize that the head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee has basically vowed to run -- to take a gas tax, if that's what is raised, and essentially try to use it as a political weapon. So, do you understand if Democrats may be skeptical of this offer?
SEN. ROB PORTMAN:
Well, you're talking about increasing the gas tax. I was referring to the $200 billion that comes in the door from the existing gas tax. And we can also index the gas tax for inflation going forward --
CHUCK TODD:
But user fees, you’ve talked about user fees. A gas tax is a user fee.
SEN. ROB PORTMAN:
Yeah, yeah. By the way, another user fee that makes a lot of sense is as we're moving to more and more electric cars and hybrids, and I'm a hybrid driver myself, my hybrid truck should pay something to use, you know, roads and bridges. So, we should put something there. The vehicle miles traveled idea on electric cars, or some sort of a fee, makes a lot of sense to make sure there's a level playing field and there's fairness there. So, there are ways to get there. My point, Chuck, is that Democrats, Republicans alike are meeting. We've got some phone calls scheduled this week. I met with the White House late last week. There's a way forward here, if the White House is willing to work with us.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to ask about the other parts that President Biden is proposing. And, for instance, on the issue of education, he makes an argument that, hey, for years we've funded essentially K-12 and that it's time that the government, essentially, add four years of education that it guarantees, two on the front end, two on the back end. Before we get to whether to pay for that, should the government be guaranteeing four more years of education in the 21st century?
SEN. ROB PORTMAN:
Well, typically it's not a federal government responsibility. As you know, feds probably pay about 6 or 7 percent of K-12 education. So, yeah, I think we can provide some incentives for it. I think pre-K makes sense. It's good to give kids a better start in life, there's no question about it. That's, you know, one reason we do support Head Start at the federal level. And then with regard to community colleges, I'm a big fan of what community colleges do. What's much more exciting to me in the proposal is the possibility that we would actually be able to use some of the federal support, including Pell grants, for worker retraining because that's what's really needed, is skills training. And the opportunity for us to allow people to get a relatively short-term training session to get a industry-recognized certificate in things like welding or machining or coding on the IT sector or hospital techs. Those are the jobs we really need right now, these middle skills jobs. And so, I would make more of an emphasis on that because that's actually the reality out there, is that we have a lot of jobs going unfilled. There's something like 500,000 jobs in manufacturing right now being offered and not filled. And one of the reasons is this skills gap. So, let's close the skills gap. To me, that would be the most effective way to use that money.
CHUCK TODD:
Before I let you go, one of the things you said in deciding not to run for re-election is you lamented the fact that bipartisanship isn't rewarded. And in fact, you are somebody that has already voted with President Biden quite a few -- quite a, quite a bit. You, yourself, have noted that you don't seem to get credit that you've been one of the more bipartisan Republicans when it comes to working with Democrats. So, why not stay and fight and make that point? You know, I know the political climate does punish that, you're right. It punishes it on the left, punishing it on the right. Why not stay and fight to change that attitude?
SEN. ROB PORTMAN:
Well, I'm in for another two years and there's lots of fights to be had, including I'd love to talk about the higher taxes that Janet Yellen talked about because they will not make our economy more competitive. It does just the opposite. I respect her, but she's just wrong on that. In fact, by raising the corporate taxes the way she wants to, you're going to hurt workers. The Congressional Budget Office, which is non-partisan, says that 70 percent of the tax cuts went into workers' pockets with higher wages and benefits. And the exact same thing is going to happen if you raise these taxes. And by the way, they're talking about raising the taxes five times higher than the taxes were cut in 2017. So, this makes America not competitive again around the world. And everybody thought that was important at the time. But look, my decision was in large measure a personal one. I've been doing this for 30 years off and on, working for four administrations and working in the Congress, both in the House and the Senate. And you know, it's time to give someone else a chance. But I'm going to stay involved. But for the next couple of years, I'll be very engaged in trying to make sure that, on a bipartisan basis, we get some things done for the American people and not continue the -- the partisan fights, but instead actually figure out how to find that common ground. And I think we can. And infrastructure is a great example of it. It's always been bipartisan in the past. Republicans have proposed the biggest infrastructure plan in the history of Congress just last week. So, we're ready to go. We want to roll up our sleeves and get to work and help to make America's economy more competitive, not by raising taxes, but by doing smart things in terms of expanding our infrastructure.
CHUCK TODD:
Senator Rob Portman, Republican from Ohio, thanks for coming on. And as you said, it is nice to have --
SEN. ROB PORTMAN:
Thanks, Chuck. It's great to be on with you.
CHUCK TODD:
-- sort of policy exchanges between you, Secretary Yellen, and the person we'll have next. So, thanks very much. When we come back, Bernie Sanders lost the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, but did he end up winding -- wind up winning the war of ideas? I'm going to talk to Senator Sanders next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Two times, in 2016 and 2020, Bernie Sanders ran for president as an unapologetic progressive, seeking vast increases in government social spending. Both times, he lost the Democratic nomination to perceived-to-be more cautious, centrist candidates: Hillary Clinton in 2016, Joe Biden last year. But with President Biden's proposals for vast new spending, it's fair to ask, did Senator Sanders lose the battles, but win the party's war of ideas? Well, Bernie Sanders joins me now. Senator Sanders, I saw you smirk there when I did that little tease about that. So go ahead and answer the question: do you feel as if, you know, when you look at your two campaigns, yes, you're not president, but do you feel as if you won the war of ideas inside your party?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, it's not just me. I think what you saw is millions of people standing up, grassroots activists standing up and saying, "You know what? At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, maybe," and Chuck, this is a radical idea, "but maybe, just maybe, government should represent the needs of a struggling working class and middle class, and not just the 1% and wealthy campaign contributors." And I think all over this country, people said, "Look, there are massive problems exacerbated by the pandemic." And I think President Biden looked around him. He said, "You know what? We've got to address those problems, not worry about the rich and the powerful." So we are beginning to make some progress in dealing with issues that have been neglected for decades.
CHUCK TODD:
I'm curious -- your focus. When it comes to seeing these plans get passed, how important is the pay-for part of this conversation? How much of this, in your mind, is you're willing, "You know what? Deficit spending. These are investments. You'll get return"? And how important do you think it is that you reform the tax code and use that to pay for this?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think, number one, most importantly, we have to deal with the crises facing this country. We have massive income and wealth inequality. Half our people live on paycheck to paycheck. We’ve got to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. You've got to do that. We have an infrastructure that is collapsing. We've got to address the existential threat of climate change. And when you do that, Chuck, when you make those investments, we create millions of good paying jobs. We have -- we are the only major country not to guarantee health care to all people as a right, the only major country not to have paid family and medical leave. We pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Hundreds of thousands of kids can't afford to go to college, and millions leave school deeply in debt. Well, you know what? You've got to address those issues. Meanwhile, you've got two people on top who own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. You've got major corporation after major corporation not paying one nickel in federal income tax. Warren Buffett, one of the richest guys in the world, reminds us that the effective tax rate for working families is higher than it is for the billionaire class. So in terms of pay for, yeah, I do think we need progressive taxation, which says to the very rich -- Biden says the cap should be, the floor should be $400,000. Nobody under that should pay more in taxes. But yes, the very rich and large corporations should start paying their fair share of taxes to help us rebuild America and create the jobs that we need.
CHUCK TODD:
If you had to make the choice -- because some of your Democratic Senate colleagues seem to have a little bit of nervousness about voting for some of these tax increases. But they will vote for the spending. Will you take the spending if it doesn't come with the, with the tax increases?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, the devil is in the details, obviously. But I think what has got to happen is we have got to begin addressing the enormous crises facing this country. And that is what I think the president is trying to do. I think once we start discussing these issues in the Congress, there will be differences of opinion. But I think there is a consensus, at least within the Democratic caucus, that now is the time to start protecting working families and the middle class and not just the 1 percent.
CHUCK TODD:
One of the things not included in the president's plan was some things that you wanted to see, including lowering the eligibility age to Medicare in particular being the biggest one there. And I want to ask you about it in conjunction with this statement that James Carville made, and I want to bring it up here. It has to do with Joe Manchin. He says, "The Democratic party can't be more liberal than Sen. Joe Manchin. That's the fact. We don't have the votes." And I bring this up because Senator Manchin has said he's not in favor of lowering that eligibility age. Do you think that was probably why--
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
James Carville --
CHUCK TODD:
-- why Joe Biden didn't include your provision in his plan?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
No, I don't think so. James Carville can live in his world. I don't think he's terribly relevant to what happens in Congress right now. Here is the story. Very simple story is that right now, for the last 55 years since Medicare was developed in 1965, it has not included coverage for dental care, hearing aids and eyeglasses. And I can tell you, in Vermont and all over this country, you've got teeth -- you’ve got senior citizens whose teeth are rotting in their mouths, older people who can't talk to their grandchildren because they can't hear them because they can't afford a hearing aid, and people who can't read a newspaper because they can't afford glasses. So to say that dental care and hearing aids and eyeglasses should be a part of Medicare makes all the sense in the world. Second of all, we're going to pay for this. This is the pay-for. Right now, as I think every American understands, we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. We're getting ripped off every day by the pharmaceutical industry who, in some cases, charges us ten times more for the same drug that's sold in Canada or in other countries. So what we want to do is what the American people want to do. We want to negotiate prescription drug prices with the industry through Medicare. When you do that, you save about $500 billion. And that can cover the cost of dental care, eyeglasses and hearing aids under Medicare, as well as lowering the eligibility age to 60. That's what we have to do. We have a pay-for for that.
CHUCK TODD:
Before I let you go, we have -- obviously the virus is pretty out of control in India. It's not in good shape in Brazil. These are two pretty big countries that could have an impact on us, both our health and our economy. Our vaccine distribution -- you know, we have a lot here. Should we start sharing it faster than we are now, particularly when you see what's going on in our hemisphere and in India? Should we be more aggressive? It seems like we've been a bit, some might argue, overly cautious about our vaccine supply.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, I think a couple of things, Chuck. The answer is yes. I think we have got to obviously make sure that every American gets vaccinated as quickly as possible. But I do think, not only do we have a moral responsibility to help the rest of the world, it's in our own self-interest because if this pandemic continues to spread in other countries, it's going to come back and bite us at one point or another. But the second thing we should do is not only make sure that excess vaccines in the United States get around to countries that need it. We should deal with this issue through the World Trade Organization of protecting the intellectual property rights of the drug companies. And I think what we have got to say right now to the drug companies, when millions of lives are at stake around the world, yes, allow other countries to have these intellectual property rights so that they can produce the vaccines that are desperately needed in poor countries. There is something morally objectionable about rich countries being able to get that vaccine, and yet millions and billions of people in poor countries are unable to afford it.
CHUCK TODD:
Glad you brought up the intellectual property rights issue, because that is something -- we want to get manufacturing started as soon as possible in some of these remote areas. Anyway, Senator Bernie Sanders, the progressive independent from Vermont, thanks for coming on and sharing your perspective.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:
Thank you very much.
CHUCK TODD:
When we come back, President Biden has decided to go big and spend big. Why he may not care how high the price tag is. The panel is next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Panel is with us. It's NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Kasie Hunt; Yamiche Alcindor, the White House correspondent for PBS NewsHour; former Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri; and Lanhee Chen, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Claire, I want to start with you. Some of your former colleagues are, I think, getting a little nervous about some of these tax increases. And you're seeing more openness to, "You know, you don't have to pay for all of it." Where is this realistically heading? Are we going for probably half of what's been proposed on the tax increases at the end of the day and a little more deficit spending?
CLAIRE McCASKILL:
Probably. I mean, what, what Chuck Schumer has to do is he has to work through many, many senators. It's not just Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. There are other senators that are concerned about competitiveness and making sure that we target these tax increases for the people who aren't paying their fair share. Will it be 28 in terms of a corporate rate? Maybe 25. Maybe 26. Maybe 27. Will everything on the wish list get through? No, probably not. But at the end of the day, Chuck Schumer's going to work through those senators and try to get them all to agree. And then, once he gets close to 50, like 49 and a half, then he starts working on the Republicans to get it across the finish line.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, it's interesting. It was notable that Janet Yellen never mentioned -- she mentioned the specific percentage rates of some tax increases they're proposing, but not the corporate tax increase, which I think was notable. Lanhee, there seems to be, though, you know, Rich Lowry made this point earlier this week: There's no Tea Party. There is no -- it doesn't seem as if this version of the Republican party is as allergic to the debt, frankly, as the, as the version of the Republican party that Rob Portman grew up in.
LANHEE CHEN:
Yeah. Well, look, the Republican party should feel like they need to make a case on the value of fiscal responsibility. That is something that I think is an important case to be made. And if you look at the proposals the president's put forward, what is clear is that, yeah, you know, I think the public, as your polling shows, does want the government to do more. But they also want the government to live, in some ways, within its means. So there is a significant amount of support, for example, for a skinnied-down package that focuses on transportation infrastructure and water infrastructure, somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 billion. That's a much more responsible approach than the several trillion dollar jobs plan that the president's put forward. So I think the Republicans need to make the case on why it is that it's important to have packages that address the need, but also do so in a responsible way. Look, in the long run, actually, independent estimates suggest the President's jobs plan shrinks the size of the economy over the long run. So these are the kinds of points Republicans need to be making as they debate these issues.
CHUCK TODD:
Kasie, look, this is your beat. It seems like Republicans and even Joe Manchin and some other Democrats want to do this more piecemeal. Is this where we're headed? Are we going to see a series of the physical infrastructure bills, and that's what happens, and then we'll find out whatever's left at the end of the summer, and then Democrats decide what to do?
KASIE HUNT:
I do think that's a possibility, Chuck. I don't think that it's been firmly decided. And, as I was listening to Senator Portman earlier in the broadcast, I thought he sounded more optimistic than I might have expected him to. More open to potentially doing something like that. And I do think if they are going to pass something that has Republican votes, it's likely not going to be everything that President Biden wants. And I think there are a lot of Democrats who are assuming that they are, at the end of the day, going to have to go it alone, especially, frankly, if they want to pay for it. So, you know, that -- I think you've hit on exactly the right tension here. There are, there are no Republicans who are interested in raising these taxes the way Democrats are talking about. But there is some nervousness among especially some of the more pro-business Democrats who, you know, frankly, are afraid to step out and, and, and do that in public because of exactly what Bernie Sanders, what Senator Sanders outlined in your conversation with him. So that's going to be a behind the scenes dynamic that I think is really going to drive a lot of this.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, Yamiche, I am curious. Progressives are getting a lot of what they want, but they're not happy about the health care provisions. Are they so unhappy they would, it would muddy up everything else? Or is this one of the things that they may rhetorically complain about, but accept it if nothing else changes?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
I think that that's a big question that needs to be answered. Right now, it sounds as though progressives are definitely wanting to push at least to try to get Medicare For All, to try to get some of the Medicare changes that Senator Bernie Sanders was just outlining for you. But overall, when you talk to progressive lawmakers, they are largely happy with what they're seeing from the Biden administration. You have people like Larry Cohen saying his staffing wouldn't have been any better if it was Bernie Sanders as president. You have progressives saying that, "Yes, we want to see a bit more, and it's our job to push him. But in fact, we are getting a lot of what we want." $6 trillion in spending if you add up all of the Biden plans right now. That's a lot of money. And the, and the Biden administration is really leaning in on the idea that they can expand the idea of bipartisanship to include all of those Republicans
who want to see money for their, for their cities. And they want to see it go past just roads and bridges to impact people's lives, like home health care workers, community college, all of the different things that the --
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
-- Biden administration is, is proposing. I think it's going to be a big challenge to get Republicans to go on because the 2017 --
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
-- tax cuts were really their signature thing that they want to keep aboard and want to keep really there.
CHUCK TODD:
That's why I, I, I smell deficit spending coming in a big way. I want to quickly play a comment from Senator Scott and the Republican response and get you guys to react on the other side. Here it is.
[START TAPE]
SEN. TIM SCOTT:
Today, kids are being taught that the color of their skin defines them again. And if they look a certain way, they're an oppressor. Hear me clearly. America is not a racist country.
[END TAPE]
CHUCK TODD:
Yamiche and Kasie, this sparked a huge debate among quite a few folks about the role of race in the history of America. Here's my curiosity, Yamiche. Did his comments put police, bipartisan police reform at risk?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
I don't think so, talking to sources, because if you saw the, the day after, President Biden as well as Vice President Harris echoed that statement. They don't believe America is a racist country. They did, though, say something that Senator Scott did not say, which is that there are consequences to slavery that have completely embedded themselves in American society, from health care, to education, to how the coronavirus pandemic exposed and exploited real inequalities in our, in our country. But I think talking to lawmakers and talking to the White House, there is this inflection point after Derek Chauvin being found guilty of murdering George Floyd that feels like lawmakers will be able to get some sort of bill at least negotiated and get far in those discussions. So I don't think this specific comment from Senator, from Senator Scott is going to upend that. And I think Democrats are really trying to lean in to say, "What can we get done on this specific issue?” Because it is so, of course, really all-encompassing when you look at how policing --
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
-- and African Americans are dealing in this country.
CHUCK TODD:
Kasie, yeah, very quickly. I mean, I'm hesitant. Lucy and the football, Charlie Brown, and you name it. The amount of optimism there is about a bipartisan police reform deal coming to fruition. Are you that optimistic?
KASIE HUNT:
I am actually optimistic, Chuck. Republicans have a very strong messenger in Tim Scott. They're lucky to have him. They trust him. I think if it's going to happen, you're going to see the majority, the vast majority of Republicans go with it. It's not going to be Tim Scott
CHUCK TODD:
Right.
KASIE HUNT:
-- and nine other Republicans. So I do think right now, today, it's possible.
CHUCK TODD:
Alright. When we come back, so you think you know who the political winners and losers are with the next census? Well, think again. That's next.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. Data Download time. The census figures came out this week. And it impacts not just the balance of power in Congress, but it obviously shifts votes in the Electoral College. So let's first look at the impact on the presidential election. With the new data, electoral votes changed in 13 states. And states that Democrats have traditionally counted on, and particularly in the northeast -- New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois and California -- each lost a vote. By the way, for California, first time they have ever lost a seat due to the census. And a number of states where Republicans have done well in recent years, Texas, North Carolina, Florida and, yes, Montana, all gained a vote. Texas, by the way, the only state to add more than one vote to their Electoral College total. So at first glance, it does seem as if Republicans benefit. And they certainly will gain Congressional seats in the short run. But these states have been changing over the last 50 years. And they continue to. So it's too soon to know the impact on the next decade of presidential elections. You just have to look back to Georgia to remember that, right? In fact, we looked at the biggest shifts going back to 1970. And there is a pretty clear pattern. No surprise. The U.S. population has been moving south and west over the past 50 years. New York is the big loser. It's down 13 seats in 50 years, while Texas gained 14, Florida 13. In fact, not one of the biggest loser states is west of the Mississippi or south of the Mason-Dixon Line. But the political impact can be a little harder to predict. Of the ten states that have seen the biggest population changes since 1970, four have looked more purple in the last presidential elections. We're talking, of course, about Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Not to mention the presidential election margin in Texas continues to shrink each cycle. And then, of course, Florida is always going to Florida on us. Now, remember this. The South was once solidly Democratic. New England was Republican territory. So what looks to be an advantage for one party now may look like a disadvantage in just a short ten years. When we come back, what in the world are Republican state legislatures up to?
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. I want to take a look at how the soul, heart and soul of the Republican Party has shifted far away from Washington. In fact, during President Biden's first 100 days, it was pretty clear the heart of the GOP is in the statehouses. Here's what's happened in these first 100 days. Republican controlled legislatures in eight states so far have passed laws that are restricting voter access, including tighter limits on absentee ballots in some places. At the same time, similar bills have been introduced in 39 other states. We don't know the results of those yet. Then, there's been some crack down on protesters. Five states already have passed bills that limit the rights of protesters. Florida, for instance, actually passed a law that would grant legal immunity to somebody who drove through protesters blocking a road. By the way, 27 other states have already had bills introduced that would also crack down on protests. We don't know those results yet. Next up, there's been a lot more looser gun laws. Nineteen states, so far this year, have passed new laws that loosen gun restrictions, including Tennessee, which now will allow people to carry handguns without seeking a permit. In fact, so far, every state in the country has had bills introduced that would do one thing on the gun issue: loosen restrictions. And then, finally, seven states have passed laws that would prevent transgender youth from participating in student athletics, and we know that similar bills have been introduced in another 26 states. We don't know where that's going. But Lanhee Chen, you know, we've been looking at the first 100 days of Joe Biden. This is the first 100 days of the Republican Party. What are you learning from it? Because if the states are the laboratories for democracy, what does this say about the future of the GOP?
LANHEE CHEN:
Well, look, I think cultural politics have always been part of the Republican Party. But, just as you've got those examples, you've got a number of Republican governors who aren't focused on these sorts of things. You think about Larry Hogan, and Charlie Baker, and Mike DeWine and Phil Scott, a series of governors who focused on governing and really the longer run vision of what the Republican Party needs to do to be successful in urban areas, in suburbs, in places like California where I live. Because, look, you know, a lot of the Republican Party now, the dialogue does seem to be around what the kids call "owning the libs." But in the long run, I think that's probably not what's going to make the Republican Party successful. And I think the examples set out by people like Baker and Hogan and others, those are going to be the kinds of things that will make the Republican Party a successful governing coalition nationally again. And that's really what I look for.
CHUCK TODD:
You sound, I think, a bit some might say overly optimistic. Claire McCaskill, you saw this transformation in the GOP, frankly, arguably, a decade earlier in Missouri. Where's this headed? Where do you think this is going in other states?
CLAIRE MCCASKILL:
I have to believe it's not good for the Republican Party because they have become simply the party of grievance. It is all about cultural wars. It's not about the budget. It's about the border. It's about playing to people's fears and making that the centerpiece of who they are as a party. And I've got to tell you, I think local journalism and the demise of it has played a role in this, Chuck. It is very difficult to get a lot of good information about some of the nutballs that are in state legislatures right now because there are so few local journalists left. That is another problem we're going to have to tackle if we want to get back to some kind of normalcy in these state capitols.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, even in the state of Florida, the state's largest newspaper has to share a capital bureau. I mean, it is absurd. You know, Yamiche, I guess the question is, do Democrats say, "All right, you want to have a culture war, GOP? Let's go.”Or, do they have asymmetrical fight back, meaning focus on kitchen table issues?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR:
Based on my conversations with White House officials and Democratic lawmakers, they're trying to lean in on the idea that they can deliver things to the American people, services, policies, that will impact their lives and better their lives, rather than getting involved in the culture wars that the Republican Party is so focused on. You can see in Republicans that they are really leaning in on strategies that helped President Trump win in 2016, but failed in 2020. These are laws including the voting rights or protesting or the transgender laws. They're all trying to solve problems that largely don't exist on a large scale. Most protests, 96 percent of them, were peaceful. There is no large voter fraud. But this is where Republicans are trying to have their energy be because they are trying to scare their voters in some ways to the polls.
CHUCK TODD:
Kasie Hunt, I want to -- speaking of the culture wars. Kevin Brady was on Meet the Press Daily with me on Friday. I'm not going to play the clip because we're short on time. I asked him three times to give Liz Cheney a vote of confidence, and he didn't do it. He's a retiring former committee chair. This is not somebody from the sort of far-right fringe of the GOP. How much trouble is Liz Cheney in?
KASIE HUNT:
I watched that interview, Chuck, and it struck me, for sure. And I do think that there's a reason why Liz Cheney recently didn't really rule out the possibility she may run for president because she may be losing support in the House of Representatives. I think there are a lot of people who are with her behind the scenes, but they're concerned that the public version of it will jeopardize their ability to take back the majority. And that's really where the tension is.
CHUCK TODD:
We shall see if she can make it through the month, let alone the rest of her term. That's all we have for today. Thank you all for watching. We'll be back next week for Mother's Day because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.